Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="0-hr" data-source="post: 3359151" data-attributes="member: 4734">Nothing in the spell indicates it acts based on alignment. It merely states 'evil'.The Holy Smite text is a more convincing, but there are counter examples as well. Detect evil says "Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) ", so if they mean alignments, then spells have alignment now? The same spell description also says "If you are of good alignment" rather than just "if you are good". Why use the word alignment there and not when talking of evil anywhere else in the same description? Checking the SRD, alignment is defined as [quoteA creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.</blockquote>Notice that just "evil" is not even an option for an alignment, but it is a legal option for a subtype.So how can we assume that 'an evil creature' is one with a (non-legal) alignment rather than one with a legal subtype? As an aside, I just noticed that (according to the SRD) player characters are not allowed to have any evil alignments - very interesting.Anyway, is there a codified convention as to when a word is a defined term and when it is just an word? Like "Evil" vs "evil" or some such? When we have evil alignments and evil subtypes, there needs to be a default definition defined or it has to be explicitly stated - otherwise we have unsolvable ambiguity and the game crashes to the blue screen of death.Now, please keep in mind that I WANT these spells to be talking about alignment. But I also want to be able to Sunder as an AoO. Does it take a house rule to make it so?[/QUOTE]

Verification